The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s order dismissing claims against a title insurance company and an escrow agent and held that they were not liable for the property purchasers’ purported fraud against the lenders. See C & G Farms Inc v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1281847 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2018).
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently held that defendant debt collector’s letter that offered various settlement options to plaintiff did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by stating that the “settlement offers may have tax consequences[.]” See Church v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 1383231 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2018).
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court and held that a lender erred by not serving a notice of intent to foreclose (“NOI”) before commencing a foreclosure action on a residential reverse mortgage. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC d/b/a Champion Mortg. Co. v. Armstrong, 2018 WL 1386247 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 20, 2018).
The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that a foreclosure under a Nevada statute giving “super priority” to homeowners’ association liens was preempted by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) in a foreclosure in which the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) held a mortgage. See Satico Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc., 2018 WL 1448731 (Nev. Mar. 21, 2018).
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently remanded an action to state court and held that a defendant-lender’s defenses under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) do not completely preempt plaintiff’s claims because the FDIA defenses do not apply to non-bank entities and, accordingly, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that an insured’s claim was barred under the title insurance policy’s exclusion for title risks “created, allowed, or agreed to by” the insured. See Moser v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1413346 (E.D. Tex Mar. 21, 2018).
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a 1902 tax sale extinguished a party’s subsurface gas, oil, and mineral rights. See Woodhouse Hunting Club, Inc., v. William Hoyt, et. al., J-A26044-17 (Sup. Ct. Pa. Feb. 2, 2018). This case involved an action to quiet title of the subsurface oil and gas rights to a tract of land (the “Property”). In 1891, the Hoyt family acquired title to the Property and subsequently conveyed it to Union Tanning Company, but reserved ownership of the gas, oil, and mineral rights and created a subsurface estate in favor of the Hoyts, their heirs, and assigns.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently held that a condominium association’s foreclosure of a “super-priority” condominium lien extinguished an otherwise first-priority mortgage on the property, despite the fact that the association’s notice of sale and deed to the third-party purchaser stated that the sale was “subject to” the mortgage. See Liu v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2018 WL 1095503 (D.C. Mar. 1, 2018).
The Court of Appeals of California recently reversed a trial court’s determination dismissing a title insurance company from a case in which the plaintiff alleged that the title insurance company improperly recorded a release. See SMS Fin. XXIII, LLC v. Cornerstone Title Co., 19 Cal. App. 5th 1092 (Ct. App. 2018).
In a decision approved for publication, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s decision granting a lender’s motion for summary judgment and holding that the borrowers’ signed acknowledgment that they had received the requisite number of Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) disclosures created a rebuttable presumption that the borrowers could not overcome.